Blu-rays With the Worst Cover Art (1 Viewer)

[Cinescott]

Photoshop is the enemy. Why are so many potentially perfect collectible discs tarnished with a butt-ugly cover? Especially when there is often existing poster art that would look incredible? To make matters even worse, the cover art is often permanently affixed to the disc itself, making the ugliness permanent.

The most hideous offense for me:

Superman - The Movie

Honorable mention:

Grease - Rockin' Rydell Edition

 

[Cinescott]

This was the best they could do, really???

Why not use these instead?

 

[Brisby]

Pretty much every DVD or Blu-Ray cover not released by Criterion looks like ass these days.

 

Michael Sheen's face never stood a chance. (For comparison, the theatrical poster: http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/damnedunited_2.jpg)

 

[Cinescott]

I think Michael Sheen looks dead on that cover.

 

[Craig S]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
I think Michael Sheen looks dead on that cover.

Or more precisely, undead. As stupid as this sounds, it looks to me like someone in the art department saw the word "Damned" in the title, figured it was a vampire flick, and adjusted the portrait accordingly. I can't think of any other reason for this travesty. It's a shame, because TDU is a fine film, and Sheen is excellent in it.

 

[Fritz Nilsen]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
Photoshop is the enemy.

Oh come now! Photoshop is a tool, nothing else. That's just like saying a paintbrush is to blame for a shitty painting. I get what you're saying, it's just that I'm tired of everyone blaming a computer program. "Photoshopped" has become a derogatory name for uninspired artwork and design. I wish everyone would just stop bringing Photoshop into the discussion. What program do you think the "good" covers are produced with? Blame the artist, not the tool.

On that topic, everyone's tastes are different. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I don't think the Grease cover you refer to is a good example of "bad" cover art.

And yes, I'm a graphic designer and illustrator.

 

[Ruz-El]

Legend strikes me as a bootleg:

Poster:

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by Fritz Nilsen
On that topic, everyone's tastes are different. One man's trash is another man's treasure. I don't think the Grease cover you refer to is a good example of "bad" cover art.

I think it's too busy. Showing scenes from te film should be back cover art. That Ghastly The Damned United looks cut from the same template

 

[GMpasqua]

Well, the "Grease" cover is (IMO) too busy and has too many photos. Is it the worst - I've seen worse. The Illustrated art on "Grease" is very nice, but it was only used for the Souvnier program and the advance One Sheet poster. The Photo from the regular One Sheet is also very good.

Some cover art is nice but has nothing to do with the film. The Blu-ray of "The Bible" makes it look like a Grimm Fairy Tale. I think the art used for "Fiddler on the Roof" clear misrepresents that film - it looks like a Beverly Hills Rabbi fiddling over Rome

 

[Cinescott]

Photoshop is a fine tool when used correctly. Unfortunately, with regard to Blu-ray cover art it's rarely used correctly IMO. There's no need for a "busy" custom cover when there is fantastic artwork for the movie already in existence. IMO, covers should not call attention to themselves. They should be representative of the film they contain, be that through original artwork released at the time the film was released, or custom work more subdued that's based on the original.

Many people like myself have very fond memories of catalog titles when they were released in theaters and part of that memory is the marketing campaign. The poster art was part of the experience, often printed on album covers etc. Many studios respect this tradition and do make an effort to have appealing artwork. It seems the "computerized" covers of today go much more towards a graphic designer's interpretation of what's appropriate rather than respecting the original designs.

In other words, why do we have a cut and paste job like this:

When we already have this?????????

 

[Cinescott]

Why this garish thing with the 9 ft. dia. disco ball?????

..........................instead of this which is perfect!!!!

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yes but focus groups rule, and focus groups show that understated cover art doesn't sell units. We are talking about marketing not athletics.
Doug

 

[Ruz-El]

I think some of these, Grease, Saturday Night Fever and Fast Times might be sex. They show woman being submissive/in aw of men. A big stupid no no these days. so you clip them out and and show the movie in a different light. Between that and the need for the studios to put bloody big heads all over the place, I think original poster art is dead.

That Superman Cover though is just plain hideous. All the Superman covers have been terrible and bootleg/cheap bin-ish.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Russell G
I think some of these, Grease, Saturday Night Fever and Fast Times might be sex. They show woman being submissive/in aw of men. A big stupid no no these days. so you clip them out and and show the movie in a different light.

Wow, I never thought of it that way. Maybe I'll just have to start making some more of my own custom covers. I'm too non-PC to care about what society deems "acceptable."

 

[TravisR]

I think some of these, Grease, Saturday Night Fever and Fast Times might be sex.

Since one of the chicks on the Fast Times poster almost has an ass cheek hanging out, you may be right there. I think for Saturday Night Fever, it was just a matter of the girl being superfluous to the image when they had the iconic shot of John Travolta and a (goofy) mirror ball so they just dropped her altogether.

 

[Ruz-El]

Since one of the chicks on the Fast Times poster almost has an ass cheek hanging out, you may be right there. I think for Saturday Night Fever, it was just a matter of the girl being superfluous to the image when they had the iconic shot of John Travolta and a (goofy) mirror ball so they just dropped her altogether.

Could be that too, the girl is in a really stupid pose. and I really, REALLY hope I'm wrong about it being a sex thing, I'm not a fan of the PC stuff either. You read about censorship in other formats, and it wouldn't surprise me that there's some Mr. Prisspants sitting about looking at the art and thinking "Oh! To scandalous, might upset group X!"

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Russell G
Could be that too, the girl is in a really stupid pose. and I really, REALLY hope I'm wrong about it being a sex thing, I'm not a fan of the PC stuff either. You read about censorship in other formats, and it wouldn't surprise me that there's some Mr. Prisspants sitting about looking at the art and thinking "Oh! To scandalous, might upset group X!"

This is interesting. On the DVD cover, no girl, but at least the mirrored ball-from-hell is gone:

Looks like the Swedish edition has the girl, so maybe it is a focus group issue:

 

[CraigF]

I don't know about these specific cases, but quite often the original poster art is NOT owned by the disc studio anymore i.e. must be licensed. Much cheaper to pay a minimum-wage trainee/intern to whip something up. Look, if they'll remove $0.001 of plastic from BD cases to save a few grams shipping weight, they'd certainly go ballistic having to pay a penny or five to use a poster art.

 

[Charles Smith]

Second only to the abandonment of original poster art, I find the most depressing thing about today's covers to be the mind numbing sameness. It's as though each film genre has one look that every poster and disc cover must now fit into.